Chuck PIL chaff, stick to public interest

In 1979, shocked by reports of inhumane conditions and prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, lawyers Kapila and Nirmal Hingorani filed the Supreme Court's first-ever PIL: 'Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar'. Since then, PILs have become a crucial instrument for securing justice, with 9,23,277 filed between 1985 and 2019, an average of 26,379 a year. Yet, irresponsible PILs abound. Misused filings have prompted the top court to label some as 'personal interest litigation', and even have fines imposed. Last week, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking reconstruction of a damaged 7-ft Vishnu idol at Khajuraho's Javari Temple, telling the petitioner to 'go and ask the deity', underlining the need for judicial prudence.

This is hardly the first time the court has curbed frivolous PILs, and won't be the last time. In July 2023, a bench led by CJI D   Y Chandrachud dismissed 4 consecutive PILs, strongly condemning the 'abuse of process'. The message was clear: court time must be reserved for genuine public interest matters. Frivolous PILs clog an already overburdened judicial system, delaying attention to cases of real consequence. Only 24,823 PILs were filed in 1985, compared with lakhs in recent decades, this surge reflecting growing misuse that threatens efficiency.

The court's call in the Khajuraho case is entirely justified. PILs were meant to champion rights of the vulnerable and uphold public interest, not serve as vehicles for personal or symbolic gestures. Protecting this principle ensures the judiciary remains focused on cases that truly matter, preserves credibility of institutions, and safeguards public faith in democracy, the rule of law and effective governance. Chaff needs to thrown out.